Replies

So as I understand it Kerry has already excommunicated HIMSELF by his vocal, public and longstanding support and pledges of future support for abortion rights.

What remains is an public acknowledgment of that fact. So if a reporter asks Bishop O'Mally the right question such as, "Has John Kerry excommunicated himself according to canon law?" All the bishop has to do is answer "YES".

Correct?

That's how I read it. If O'Malley says ANYTHING else, he is admitting that neither he nor his predecessor ever had formal interview with Senator Kerry to apprise him of his danger. Thus, O'Malley would be publicly admitting to being in violation of canon 386 himself. I don't know if O'Malley is a canon lawyer (most bishops are), but he would be a real foolish man not to be talking to one right now.

O'Malley has GOT to be sweating bullets, hoping no one asks that question for a couple of reasons. First, the answer places him squarely against canon 386. Second, the only reason any other bishop has leeway on giving Kerry the Eucharist right now is that Kerry's own bishop hasn't publicly pronounced on the matter. Once O'Malley publicly answers that question with a "yes," EVERY OTHER BISHOP MUST DENY KERRY THE EUCHARIST.

If anyone refuses, they are now at odds with the presiding bishop and arguably in formal schism.

These next few days are absolutely ticklish for O'Malley and for Kerry's presidential bid. This is, no lie, the October surprise that kills Kerry's bid.

Dear skellmeyer,

"Once O'Malley publicly answers that question with a 'yes,' EVERY OTHER BISHOP MUST DENY KERRY THE EUCHARIST."

Actually, there was a case out in California, I think, of a bishop denying the sacraments to a pro-abort Catholic pol. The neighboring Catholic bishop invited the pol to the Eucharist in his diocese.

In this case, where one bishop didn't recognize the excommunication of another, it wouldn't mean schism, but it would mean that if the excommunicating bishop wished to enforce the excommunication across the board, he'd have to bring it to Rome. I think this has happened before.

Practically speaking, however, I think the deal is cut. The "fuzzy" bishops may have lost at the June bishops meeting, and the "burn-'em-at-the-stakers" appear to be moving with quiet Vatican backing.

sitetest

"If O'Malley says ANYTHING else, he is admitting that neither he nor his predecessor ever had formal interview with Senator Kerry to apprise him of his danger."

But wait. He did have a meeting with Kerry I think. I will do some research and get back to you.